Critiquing the Manosphere

Main menu

Sunday RadFem Roundup

This is a new feature at Mancheeze. Every Sunday I’ll put together a link list of what I think are the best posts by radfems. If there are radfems reading this you can tweet me your articles at joyintorah18 during the week and link me to your articles and I’ll consider them submissions. Let’s go!

Gail Dines Reviews Rachel Moran’s book ‘Paid For’, a book about Moran’s experiences as a prostituted woman in Ireland.

University of Toronto women sent violent threats by men’s rights activists and the Uni is downplaying it. When the Uni first said there were threats, they never identified that the target was women and feminists.

Women being women and loving themselves for it. This woman wasn’t born during peak twanz libfem fun times groveling to men. This woman embraced her true self and didn’t fall for the man box that transactivists would’ve pushed on her today. She understood that being herself was the only thing that mattered, not some gender straight jacket.

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Sunday RadFem Roundup”

The Uni of Toronto article containing the text of the threats made is hard to read. The writer is fixated, repeating himself and has specific targets. He twice recommends a certain business for renting a machine-gun and gives the exact price. He is as serious sounding as anyone could be. He says to murder women if they act disrespectful or might make a “false rape claim”. This last is constantly harped on by AVFM though there is no direct linkage at least that has been made public.

When threats like this are made as at the uni where Sarkeesian had to cancel and here and online, it helps people to see the actual texts. Otherwise manosphere sites will accuse the receiver of lying, say they aren’t serious, or ludicrously accuse feminists of writing the threats to make them look bad. Let the public judge rather than have them try to spin the threats away.

Also, when sites like AVFM claim they have received threats, as they claimed to before their Detroit conference, let’s see the text (in that case AVFM doesn’t even claim to have seen the threats, and discounted them itself, and since they use hyperbole as a constant propaganda technique, we have to ask what “threats” mean at all to them). Publishing the text should be the first requirement for anyone making any such claim. I realize it’s another assault for a woman receiving a threat to have to publish them, and that they can be triggering for other women, and that they may encourage other unbalanced violent people. But we have to do this.

It’s important to say that when police say a threat is not “credible” it does not mean that they think it was not made or is false in some way. “Credible” means that they don’t judge that the threatener is likely to carry out the threat. This could be because the source of the threat is a long geographic distance away, or other reasons unrelated to the threatener wanting to harm someone. He just doesn have the actual opportunity, the police think.Since this word is confusing police should use another phrase like “a threat we don’t judge is likely to be carrtied out.”

There are levels of credibility, too. The Toronto threat was credible enough for the police to send officers to protect women students there. We also all need to understand that threats are often intimidation or verbal assault. They are the harm in themselves and the threatener has no intention of carrying them out, but they cause the person threatened to be silenced even so as it is so concerning to receive one.

I’d be interested in reading more about what criminal penalties there are for these threats, which (in the US) suppress freedom of speech, a constitutional right. It seems clear they are hate speechand a rights violation, but I don’t know if that’s how they are treated. I do know the crime of assault doesn’t require anyone to be actually physically touched or harmed, it’s enough if they are put into a state of reasonably fearing harm.

For the record the threats re the AVFM conference were against the hotel employees by MRAs, because Elam suggested that the hotel might cancel their booking when advised that the SPLC listed them as a hate group.

Far as I know it was all a pack of lies. Elam claimed that the hotel required AVFM to provide security. Hotel says nope. Elam claims they had such a huge response that they had to move to a larger venue. As you can see from the pics taken of their soiree they would have fit in the teeny tiny conference room. No actual evidence of threats was provided except what commenters on AVFM threads said they said.

Pretty much everything Elam says turns out to be a lie or the grossest exaggeration. Enough was written about it that he really thought he was finally going to get the recognition he so richly deserved.
And he did.

What iced the dummy cake of his flaming grift was when the corporate media took him seriously for a brief moment and interviewed him as well as the estranged family members.

For Mothers Looking For Help In Custody Battles With Abusive Fathers

I get emails all the time from mothers involved in custody disputes with violent men's rights activists.

Here are some resources that explain the tactics these men use in court.

Parental Alientation Syndrome is NOT REAL. It's not recognized by ANY medical or psychological body. Richard Gardner made up this term in the 80's to attack mothers. You must get educated on this for court because male lawyers representing the abusive father will use it.Parental Alienation - Parental Alienation Syndrome

Abusive fathers also think 'Shared Parenting' or 'Equal Shared parenting' is something they're entitled to. This concept assumes that upon a break-up the children should be split 50/50 custody even if the father is abusive.

The 'father' of the 'father's rights movement' and 'men's rights movement' is undoubtedly Warren Farrell who is abusive to women. He aligns himself with the hate site 'A Voice for Men'. This site is written about by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a misogynist hate site.